It has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that the STORIES surrounding allegations of abuse of Hollie Greig are a dishonest and malicious hoax promoted by Anne Greig, Robert Green, Stuart Usher and others.

I freely admit I was conned into support of the claims, based upon lies and promises of evidence that never materialised. I apologise to anyone who may feel they have thus been defamed by my error.

For details of the background we would ask you to read the PAGE CLICK HERE

Wednesday, 21 July 2010

@6:36

Interviewer: Yeah, tell me about that story about Hollie and the petrol station incident thing

Belinda McKenzie: Well, this is, this happened several weeks ago, probably sort of about the end of May, erm, and sort of just one of the things that happened which sort of adds to the whole sort of sinister and package of nasty things that have been going, going on with Hollie and Anne since they’ve been going public, and they were in a petrol station and obviously filling up the car and er, Anne went in to pay basically and left Hollie in the car by herself, and when she came out and came back to the car, Hollie was in floods of tears and very upset and apparently some policewoman had come and banged on the window and had shouted abuse at Hollie through the window and told…threatened Hollie basically you know, we know what you’re doing and we’re not going to put up with it and whatever she said, Hollie was completely horrified and upset by it

Interviewer: What did she say?

Belinda McKenzie: Well, I haven’t actually heard what, what she actually said, but it was bad enough to really upset Hollie so if it’s a question as to whose upsetting Hollie then I have to say it’s the official people who are upsetting Hollie, not the campaigners, which is really, you know, the message we’re trying to get across is that this campaign and what we’re doing to defend Hollie actually makes Hollie feel a lot better and happier. What doesn’t make her feel happy is when the official people tell her they want to kill her, get rid of her and shut her up and separate her and all that….

I have no doubt that Belinda McKenzie believes what she has apparently been told by Anne Greig, but there are a couple of things which strike me as odd about her statement.

The question asked by the interviewer “what did she [the policewoman] say?” Why did Belinda McKenzie feel the need to fill her reply with an explanation that it is not the campaigners who are upsetting Hollie? And when did any official tell Hollie that they want to kill her, get rid of her, shut her up or separate her?

A police person entering a petrol station will no doubt attract attention from other customers at the fuel pumps, therefore it is likely that if this incident had taken place then there would be numerous people who witnessed this odd behaviour by the policewoman, especially as she was apparently banging on a car window and shouting abuse at a passenger.

Petrol stations have CCTV covering all their pumps, so no doubt there will be video coverage of this odd behaviour by said policewoman.

After this announcement to the public there has been no follow up from either Anne Greig or Robert Green, at least as far as I am aware. Surely this would the scoop of the year for a couple who have tried hard to collect information on the ‘cover up’ of Hollie’s case.

If it turns out that Hollie had not told this story to her mother and that Anne had in fact invented the scenario, then it would certainly place a question mark over anything else that Hollie has supposedly said in the past.

The ‘Story’ regarding the Police Woma at The Petrol Station does seem, much like all the rest of the ‘Stories’ little more than a fantasy on the part of the seriously damaged Anne Greig – despite the huge bonus this would have handed her campaign, were it true, not a shred of evidence, corroboration or substantiation has ever been put forward, despite the absolute certainty that the incident, had it happened, would be recorded on CCTV.

Once it became clear the ‘story’ was implausible the scammers tried desperately to distance themselves from it.

It has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that the STORIES surrounding allegations of abuse of Hollie Greig are a dishonest and malicious hoax promoted by Anne Greig, Robert Green, Stuart Usher and others.

I freely admit I was conned into support of the claims, based upon lies and promises of evidence that never materialised. I apologise to anyone who may feel they have thus been defamed by my error.

For details of the background we would ask you to read the PAGE CLICK HERE

.

Hi,

With thanks to the web site ‘Cutting Through The Rubbish’ with whom you will note I co-operated, particularly when I was running the Stolen-kids Hollie Greig web site for Anne Greig & Robert Green and subsequently when I realised they had lied to me and duped me dishonestly to promote their ‘Stories’ regarding Hollie Greig, at which stage I exposed the entire pack of lies.

The claque promoting the scam were so incensed with low lifes like John Taylor aka Stephen Milne, Belinda McKenzie, Robert Green, Matt Quinn, Brian Gerrish, George McKendrick and the like openly and dishonestly defaming me and the death threats which I reported to the police + the fact that devices were put in place to record all phone numbers, including those witheld I understand, shows the lengt6hs to which they were willing to sink to promote their scam.

I note that the videos that were on You Tube were withdrawn on ‘claims’ of breach of copyright, though I believe of more significance may well be the desire by the dishonest to suppress the facts regarding the Hollie Greig Hoax.

Probably with effort copies of the video clips could be found and were that the case perhaps someone can supply them for me to add to this thread once more.

RG: And the medical records of Hollie I’m empowered to talk about now which confirmed that a doctor Carter examined Hollie in 1990 and found that she had a sexually transmitted disease.

MD: Sure

RG: These are the kind of people that the Scottish establishment are trying to cover up for

MD: Sure. Look Robert I think you’ve heard me say already that I’m….what I said ..I’ve said several times tonight already that I think that there are strong grounds for backing up the suggestion that Hollie was abused probably by someone by…who had access to her. Yes, that’s not in dispute as far as I’m concerned Robert it never has been. Let’s talk about the autopsy. Now, the autopsy, I guess the listeners don’t know, this is Anne’s brother, now erm, Anne’s brother allegedly erm killed himself and I think that Robert now insists that …it’s suggested by Robert and the campaign team that this was murder because the brother, Mr Greig, had seen Hollie being abused. Now, what I’ve managed to find out Robert and I don’t know whether you as your, erm, your role as a senior investigator in this case whether you did but two days before Mr Greig was found dead he had been suspended from his job for financial irregularities, okay, and he was then…

AG: Can I just butt in here?

MD: Sure Anne, sure

AG: That, that’s not…he was suspended but er, he’d already spoken to his union meeting, er, leader about it and it was a minor thing, he had to go down to Glasgow and to speak to them, er, it was absolutely …it was a stock take problem right

MD: yes he was suspended on the suspicion of stealing money, that’s what he was suspended for….so he …er…

AG: You think my brother took his life because of that? Is that what you’re trying to say?
MD: Sorry?

AG: so who gave him the fractured skull, the broken sternum? And the broken ribs?

MD: Well, can I just come to that? I’ll just come to that. He didn’t have a fractured skull, he had some damage to his head yes, but not a fractured skull. Now what happened as far as I understand is that he fixed a pipe to the exhaust and attempted to kill himself and…

AG: Not attached

MD: …and something went wrong and the car went on fire, there were two people passing, dragged him out of the car and were attempting…

AG: They were passing? I don’t think so

MD: Now the injuries that you’re talking about Anne, a broken sternum, a broken ribs, these are all injuries which are consistent with CPR. Now did anybody…

AG: Nooo! Not at all

MD: Has anyone on this panel ever done first aid?

AG: Not at all

MD: Has anyone done first aid on this panel…

AG: We’ve had experts look at the autopsy

MD: Anyone who’s done first aid will tell you that the damage (can’t hear a few words because of Anne Greig’s raised voice) …consistent with CPR

AG: You are not medically qualified to state anything about my brother’s autopsy because you are not medically qualified. Now we have had experts look at my brother’s autopsy right

MD: I’m just telling you that this again is something else that would not stand up as far as a journalist is concerned from a news organisation (can’t hear because of Anne Greig’s voice drowning out Mark Daly’s.)

MD: Well I’m lead to believe that there was no fractured skull…there was damage but there was no fractured skull and again it was at the back of the head and it was consistent with injuries while delivering CPR

AG: That’s absolute tummy rot…

TL: Alright, ha ha…we’re almost out of time folks. Anything else Mark that you’d like to say?

MD: Well I just …yeah, yeah I would actually. Now I don’t know whether what I’ve said tonight will make any difference to this campaign or to what they think about the BBC. What, what is interesting is that Robert has refused to give permission for the secretly recorded conversations to be broadcast, now I wonder what his thinking behind that is…but the one thing I would say, and …I know, Anne is obviously getting hostile against me now and I can understand why, but ..the one thing I’d say here is that this case, I can’t ever see this case getting to court unless some new evidence comes forward. But like I said before, the one allegation that did hold any water has been washed in a deluge of these other, slightly fantastical, allegations and I just wonder that when this fever and the emotion dies from this campaign, when no success is attained, when no newspaper will publish, that when the steam eventually runs out, who’s going to be looking after…who’s going to be looking out for Anne and Hollie then? Will Robert Green still be?

TL: Well er…
MD: Tony Legend? David Ike?

AG: I’m a fifty-eight year old woman for God sake you know?

RG: There’s no question about that Mark. I shall be here right to the end and I don’t agree with your analysis of that. And one other thing I would like to mention to you as well, is that the opposition, the solicitors representing the sheriff, who I am not going to name right now, representing him in this case, have already accepted that Roy Greig was murdered, that is the other side

MD: Oh Robert that’s just not true.

RG: Oh it is. We’ve got it. We’ve got the document.

MD: Robert, Robert …you are…

RG: It’s a legal document in the public domain, you can go look at it…

MD: Robert, Robert … …Truth Ninja, I don’t think you would know the truth if it was karate chopped across your neck Robert I wish…

RG: You should know that

MD: …I wish you good luck in your campaign for Parliament okay. And I think that erm, I hope that some of the things that have been said by the more sensible people listening to this program will be taken on board and considered properly, before people start turning up and demonstrating outside organisations, before people start making allegations, the most serious allegation anybody can make about someone to call them a paedophile. People should maybe have a little bit of, people should have a pause and really genuinely think about what it is that you’re doing here Robert, about the seriousness of what you’ve done. What you’ve done is an affront to free speech, it’s an affront to it, it’s not a demonstration of it, it’s an affront to it and it’s disgraceful. And you’ll have to live with that. Tony thanks very much for having me

RG: He, Mark I have no trouble in living with myself over this, it’s the cowards you try to cover and that included you.

TL: No worries er Mark I do appreciate you coming on and you’ve done a good job of giving your side of the story and I understand that, obviously it’s a hot topic, but the bottom line is that, as we can all agree, Dennis Mackie has a lot to answer for. He’s still free, he’s not hiding, he’s a free man so maybe we should go and door knock him or doorstep him as you would put it and see what he has to say on the matter, but I do appreciate your time, you’ve been a good guest and thank you very much for er giving us your time and coming on the show tonight.

MD: All the best Tony

TL: Alight, no worries, thanks very much. There he goes folks, Mark Daly …alright we’re going to go to a track. Ten minutes to ten ….that was KRS one. Robert did you like that?

RG: Err It gives me nightmares

TL: Ha ha, I’m sorry I couldn’t resist it

RG: Nooo, you should be ashamed of yourself

TL: The last time I spoke to you, this was before you got arrested…er, rearrested, I played that song and sure enough the police came up for yer

RG: Ohh..they’re probably listening right now. They’re probably on their way as we speak.

TL: Well listen folks, we’re all friendly and we all just want to fight corruption and I think that any er law enforcement officer should be fighting for law enforcement and there’s a lot of stuff that’s gone on which is absolutely ridiculous and I think deep down in their hearts they know what’s really gone on and just think that maybe a few more of them should maybe have to take a pay cut or lose their salary and just go on and er fight for freedom and fight for justice, but anyway don’t let me rant here…we’ve got Lorraine on the line. Lorraine welcome to the tony Legend Show.

RG: Ah! No, no, no! I invited you to that meeting and I was going to give you a platform and

MD: Really? I don’t, don’t recall that…If I have Robert then …

RG (really starts raising his voice over Mark Daly’s now): There was your chance!
(Mark Daly in the background apologising, he must have missed the email, Robert Green still talking over Mark who is now asking Robert to please continue…)

RG: No! Because you had a chance to speak. You’re only on here now because you’re getting your collar felt. You’re probably under orders from somebody …(something about the BBC mentioned during Robert’s rant but can’t make it out)

MD: No actually. No, no.

RG: I’m not going to let you off the hook.

MD: Tony, can you mediate this properly please?

TL: Yes, yes. I’m trying to. Go ahead, yes.

MD: Tony now…er…as part of this paedophile ring, the ringleader is the sheriff, he’s also involved with his sister and his sister’s wife. Now Robert being an investigator, Truth Ranger as he’s been called, will of course have made sure that these relationships exist. The truth Tony, is that this sheriff has no sister, therefore has no brother-in-law. Okay. So you know, these are the main people of the paedophile ring and two of them don’t exist. Okay. Now, shall I move on?

TL: Yeah, I’d just like to …Anne, would you like to say anything to that?

AG: That’s not true at all

MD: Well these things as you know are checkable through the register of births, deaths and marriage, marriages and er ask Robert to maybe have a look at that. Now next…

AG: I think you must have the wrong sheriff there

TL: sorry, say that again there Anne

AG: I think you must have got the wrong sheriff

MD: No I don’t have the wrong sheriff Anne I’m afraid, I don’t. Now, if I can just continue

TL: Yeah, continue

MD: It’s been said, well firstly, the allegations were made at first in 2000 and many of the allegations were said to have… some of the abuse was said to have taken place in the sheriff’s house in Aberdeen. This sheriff…

AG: That’s not true

MD: Well Anne, I’ve seen some of the allegations and it is true

AG: Ah that’s not true, that’s not what we told you.

MD: He didn’t live in Aberdeen until 2000. He didn’t live in Aberdeen until 2000

RG: We never said that

MD: He only lived there in 2000. These are the kind of things…

AG: We never said his house. At all. We never mentioned his house at all

MD: It has been said Anne. It has been said. These are the kind of things that investigators investigate to see whether or not they can proceed with a story. Now can I move on?

AG: That was never said at all that it was at his house.

MD: Okay, well I think you have, have said that. That allegation has been made Anne.

AG: Hollies’ here, do you want to speak to Hollie and ask her?

MD: No I don’t Anne. I think that would be inappropriate.

AG: No, no I didn’t think you would.

RG: We never said it was the sheriff’s house. (unintelligible) so I’m afraid this another lot of nonsense you’re coming out with.

MD: Robert

RG: I could…

MD: Robert, you know those other seven children you’ve named?

RG: Sorry?

MD: you know the seven other children that you’ve named?

RG: Yes.

MD: Two of them weren’t born at the time of these allegations.

RG: I think that is…I think you’re absolutely wrong there Mark.

MD: Have you spoken to any of these people?

RG: I’m not making any comments on them.

MD: Have you spoken to any of the people that you’ve said have had any part of this paedophile ring? Have you spoken to any of the other victims that you’ve named? Because I can tell you they’re all (unintelligible) about it

AG: (raising her voice) These children that you are speaking about are all adults now

MD: Sorry?

AG: These children that you’re speaking about are adults

MD: No there not. Two of them are ten years old and were not born at the time of the allegations.

AG: (shouts) they’re all adults

MD: Shall I move on?

TL: Yep yep, continue if you want yeah

MD: Now it’s been said that your son was erm, well he faced a charge for lurid behaviour I think or some sort of flashing offence, but the sheriff in question helped him to get off with it, okay, I don’t think that’s in dispute at all.

AG: No, no that’s not what I said at all.

MD: And that his business card was found

AG: That’s correct

MD: The business card ….

AG: Now it wasn’t a business card for..it was for a lawyer, not a sheriff

MD: okay, the allegation as I was told is that the lawyer is the same as the sheriff and that was the sheriff who helped him get off, but in fact he didn’t get off. He was convicted of that offence.

TL: Well Mark, if I can come in there for a minute, I, obviously we’re getting to the ins and outs here which is…
MD: yes, but Tony, but it’s important because I’m telling you the reason that a story like this can’t be published or broadcast, because when it comes to it, when you look at the allegations, when you look at the evidence, I’m afraid that many of the allegations just don’t stand up.

TL: But…I mean just for a minute…maybe you’ve called me naive for thinking this before, but surely a court of law but the place to have these sort of discussions and not on er the Tony Legend show? A court of law would be a much more ideal place you know…hands on the bible and swear and stuff…

MD: tony, you know, you’ve got a great point there and the point here is that the one allegation that had any legs – the one allegation that should have been brought in front of a court, in front of a judge, had been washed in a deluge of other allegations, which I’m afraid don’t stand up. Now if Robert, this lead investigator, had taken the time to perhaps go and speak to any of the other victims that he’s named, to any of the people that he’s accused of being a paedophile, he might have been able to get a little closer to the truth himself. But, you know, two of the people in this…two alleged victims were not born at the time. Two were in their late teens, almost in their twenties, does that ring true?

AG: That’s not true at all. I’ve…

MD: What kind of investigation have you done Robert?

AG: That is not true at all.

MD: Two of the people have said that they only met Hollie once or twice. Now these are all things that are very easily checkable. None of these things has Robert done – none of them. These are the, these are the types of things that an investigator does, and Robert has done none of them. And these are the reason I’m afraid Tony, Anne, these are the reasons why the BBC cannot broadcast a story like this, because the allegations, the wider allegations, I’m afraid do not stand up. And the one allegation that did….could possibly have stood up has been washed amongst the rest of them.

RG: I’m going to give you one …

MD: And on who’s conscience will that be on Robert?

RG: I don’t…yours as much anyone’s I think Mark, but one thing I will do and I might make one concession to you and the BBC, I…that three documents came forward after the BBC dropped the story and to give…to be fair to you, I think had you got those documents I think even the BBC would have stood up to whoever is threatening them…the three documents…

MD: You’re still insistent you’re not going to drop this story…

RG: No, no, no. I’m going to tell you what the documents are and then you can perhaps have a think about it and perhaps come back and tells us if you think you would continue to the story had you had access to these documents.

MD: Okay, carry on.

RG: Firstly the document from Alisa Angolini claims she had no connection with the case whatsoever, in fact as you well know because you’ve seen the documents we have a letter from James ..er..from Brian Adams MSP dated the 25th er 27th October 2000 writing directly to Mrs Angolini asking her directly how she’s getting on with the case…

MD: It proves that the Lord Advocate you know, may have mislaid a letter…so what?

RG: Oh no! No, no Mark there’s a letter here that you saw because it’s in the documents, you saw this letter, it stated the 12 July 2001 it’s from the Procurator Piscal’s Office headed Alisa Angolini at the top of it and writing here to Anne’s solicitor at the time to Eyvon McKenna actually discussing the case and this is the case that Mrs Angolini had no knowledge off…or no involvement. You have that document.

MD: I’m afraid that’s a bit thin Robert, if you are the journalist you claim to be then you’d know that. Why don’t you tell me what the next document is.

RG: I think you’re a weak journalist because you knew the Lord Advocate had been lying but you didn’t want to take them on in case anything happens to you.

MD: Why don’t you tell me what the next document is Robert

RG: And also, the other document we had as well you didn’t have and I have to say again I think the BBC might even looked at it slightly differently was the autopsy report we finally got hold of…

MD: (continued) would lose my job, the first thing I would do would be to resign and to go freelance and tell the story myself. Now does it really ring true to you Tony? Does it?

TL: Well, if this was the BBC maybe twenty years ago I would take it on but for me the BBC has lost a lot of credibility and respect.

MD: Listen, I’m not here to defend the BBC, er, BBC has its problems er, it does, but I’m here to talk to you tonight about my role in this and I’m asking you Tony, do you really think that rings true?

TL: Well, I let Robert come in because he wants to say something to you there…Robert go ahead.

RG: Yes I do Mark. Now Mark …

MD: Hello Robert

RG: Hello Mark, now I maybe regards a little old fashioned but I believe in chivalry. It’s not only because you refuse to do the story that distresses me enormously and we can talk about that, I’m not going to talk about it unless you give me your assurance on this. You are not only in the situation where you did not run the story, but you insulted a lady and that lady happens to be my client Anne Greig. You made serious aspersions in writing about her mental state. They were heartless, cruel, they were groundless and more over you knew they were groundless and unless I get an unconditional apology to you right now, Anne is here at the studio, I will not talk to you any more about this.

MD: Right, okay. Robert I …to be honest I’m actually surprised you actually came on the program tonight to, to, to speak to me and I think, you know, it would be rather cowardly of you if you were to suddenly hang, or suddenly walk out of the studio and not take any further part in the debate. Now what I will say about what you’ve just said is that Anne passed me, erm, details, medical details about her. Now if you think I’m going to talk about somebody’s personal medical details on air, I’m just not going to do it, what I will do, what I will do is this, from the notes, from the evidence, from the documents that I was given by Anne, it was very clear to me in my opinion, in my opinion that had I to rely on, in a court, defending allegations I had made about somebody, a paedophile (unintelligible) that I would not be able to rely on her in court. That was the conclusion I reached, that was the truthful conclusion I reached, that was what I believed and that’s what I said to Anne in a private letter Robert, and I’ve no wish to talk about, erm, Anne’s mental health on air, you know, with hundreds or thousands of people listening. Okay. Now, if you still don’t wish to discuss these issues…

AG: hang on a second.

MD: Okay Anne.

AG: Right, this is my, you know, er, medical things that we’re speaking about here and I have got absolutely nothing to hide.

MD: Okay. I still, you know, Anne I…

AG (shouts over MD): Okay!

MD: Anne, I’ll be happy to talk to you, erm, about this issue if you like on a personal note…

AG (interrupts): Okay!

MD: on a personal…

AG (interrupts): the documents I gave you, the documents that I gave you proved that this was a paper chase right. Three…well, not even three months after I was sectioned the whole case was dropped. Everything.

MD: Okay Anne

AG: And this is now how many years down the line? Right? So don’t, don’t you say that you had this thing about me because that is really highly insulting

MD: I’m sorry that you were. That you took as it insulting Anne. I was giving you a genuine appraisal of my opinion of the situation. However, Anne, there are many, many more reasons why I was unable to continue with this story and now, if Robert agrees and if you agree, I will talk to you about that conclusion that I reached at some point and I’d be happy to, but I’d like to move on to the many, many other reasons which meant that this is not a story that I or the BBC or for that matter, any other reputable, any other reputable news organisations can ever publish…

AG: Mark, I’d just like to say to you, are you medically qualified?

MD: As I said to you Anne, it isn’t, it was my opinion that, my opinion only…

AG: Yeah, your opinion

MD: …that…hang on…

AG: but you’re not medically qualified are you?

MD: no and I don’t claim to be, but it was my opinion that had I had to rely on you in court then I thought that your credibility would have been impaired…

AG: What did you think I would have done in court like?

MD: Anne, I’m sorry that was the conclusion I reached at…

AG: What do you think I would have actually done in court?

MD: what do you mean? It’s not what you would have said in court Anne, that’s not, that’s not what it was about and I took great pains to explain to you and to Robert the reasons behind my decisions related to the documents that you passed me

TL: Now can I just come in for a wee second folks. Now Mark I respect that this, this is tension all round in all angles here but erm, I’d like to move on a second because at the end of the day it’s not about Mark Daly, it’s not about the BBC, It’s not about censorship or any who said…who said what….the bottom line is that we both agree that Hollie was abused by her dad and so I would like to focus on that.

MD: I’m not saying anything like that, but I’m saying to you is that I think that there was probably some strong evidence that Hollie was abused …yes…and I’m not saying…

AG: Mark, as far as I’m concerned I just say the loop

MD: Can I just move on…

AG: No! As far as I’m concerned I could be the loopiest person on this planet and that does not distract from the fact that my daughter was abused.

MD: It does not Anne, it does not, absolutely not so..

TL: So erm…

MD: Can I, can I just come in a minute please

TL: Yes

MD: Robert, in …there are various things online, you’ve said online. You’ve said things online, you’ve said things to radio stations, to anyone who would listen really, erm, you’ve named this paedophile ring, erm, you have…at the bottom of everything you’ve said all these names, al l known to me as a result of my extensive investigation and I believe them to be true, so you investigated all these allegations Robert, is that right?

RG: Mark, I want an unconditional apology to Anne right now. (gets angry, raises his voice) I’ve just told you. I’m not talking to you again until you behave like a gentleman. This is you and me, man to man. Have the guts to apologise your disgusting remarks about Anne’s mental state, have no bearing on the case anyway and you knew to be false.

MD: Tony, can I just suggest to you that, I don’t think Robert is going to erm, engage in anything to do with me tonight because he knows that what I’ve got to say, erm, is going to be slightly problematic for him. So if you can just try and mediate the situation Tony because….what I will do is say that I’m very sorry that Anne was offended by comments that I made. I am sorry about that, but there’s nothing I can do about the fact that was my opinion and I’d like to say I’m sorry Anne was offended by that, but Robert, if you can please move on and just answer the questions.

TL: I would just like to say, I mean obviously I’m not a medical expert either but after meeting Anne for even after five minutes I could realise that she’s very articulate and very well spoken and not in any way crazy and the way I perceive this when she was sectioned, that, that just looked to me like trying to discredit her and it seems to have worked.

MD: Okay, well, if we can agree to move on Tony please.

TL: Alright…Robert…

MD: Robert, would you answer the questions please

RG: Well no. Have you, is that an unconditional apology to Anne? Will you withdraw everything you said and admit that what you said was groundless? It was based on lies and you knew it to be false. I want you to say that on air now.

MD: No, I’m sorry, I can’t Robert, no…

RG: You’re not getting off the hook that easily, you lied.

MD: Sorry, I can’t say that Robert .. Robert look..
.
RG: Well in that case I’ve got nothing more to say to you Mark, that’s the end as far as I’m concerned

MD: Tony…okay..

RG: You are not a gentleman

MD: Tony, why don’t you come in here, just try and take control of the situation please.

TL: Alright. We’ll move on Mark. What else would you say here live, because I know this, this…

MD: Tony, I’ve had months of this without ever being asked to give my side of the story, even this program Tony, erm, not once was I asked to come on and put my side of the story. I wasn’t asked for a right of reply. I had to ask to come on this program, okay…so, if you don’t mind I’d like to say my piece…

TL: Okay. Yeah. If that’s…go ahead you have the floor.

MD: Now, Graham…er Robert, you’re saying that you’re an investigator, you’re saying that all these allegations have been investigated and their known to you to be true, now let’s start with the sheriff. Now this sheriff who is one of the ringleaders of this ring, the sheriff’s sister is also involved and the sheriff’s brother-in-law….Am I right?

TL: This is Manchester video online dot com. Twenty-five minutes to nine right now. that was Junior Kelly with Corruption. Alright then, I’m joined now by Mark Daly from BBC Scotland … and Mark, I appreciate you having the guts to come on and tell your side of the story so I’d like to first of thank you for your time and thank you for coming on the show tonight.

MD: Hi Tony, how you doing? Well yeah, thanks for having me on the show. Erm, I guess by way of an opening statement I just like to say that I didn’t have any intention of coming onto a program like this to justify my actions or the BBC’s actions. I have no wish to compound what is already an extremely tragic and very sad situation. However, over the weeks and months I’ve been, you know, a victim of a sustained barrage of abuse about mine and the BBC’s decision to drop this story, erm, which we did, no question about it, we did look at this story and we did drop so tonight I’ve come onto the program to explain my reasons for doing that.

Erm, I don’t…you know, there are some things I’m going to say tonight which probably won’t be that easy for some of the people in the studio to hear but I feel that my hand has been forced. I just hoped that erm, you Tony, erm give me a fair hearing and I’m very pleased that Mr Green is on the program as well to join in with the debate.

TL: Alright, let’s just start at the beginning if that’s alright. How did you first hear of Hollie Greg?

MD: Well, the story was passed to me and I’ll summarise very quickly how my involvement in this story began. I spoke to Robert Green and I spoke to Anne, and erm, I had a few conversations over a a few days and I asked for a selection of paperwork to be sent to me. I was told that there was a massive bundle of paperwork which is always good for guys like me. So I asked for this to be sent to me and it was sent, and on the face of it there was an extremely powerful story what you had was, erm, some (unintelligible) very serious allegations.

Now at the time we were looking to do a program about justice and how people with learning disabilities have problems accessing justice for precisely the kinds of reasons that you people are campaigning, that their not viewed as credible witnesses. This is an extremely important issue and one which the BBC thought that we would have a look at. What Hollie would have been was probably our chief case study. So on the basis of the evidence which we had, erm, it looked like there was some strong grounds to support Hollie’s allegation that she’d been abused by … probably by somebody in her family. That was supported by a letter from a senior police officer and the fact that she had received compensation despite no charges being brought.

So on that basis alone there was a very strong program there. There were some other allegations about a wider paedophile ring, now …I’ve been a journalist for a lot of years, erm, I’ve done programs about many things, paedophiles is one of them. I did a program called “Britain’s most wanted paedophiles,” I’ve chased five ‘on the run’ paedophiles around Europe for months until they were finally back in police custody. I know quite a lot about the subject and I know that these things do happen and I know they happen in Britain and I know that some times they happen under our own noses, so I was prepared to…to…believe that these allegations could have some grounds, but the basis on the initial allegations, about the initial abuse carried out by somebody in her family – those allegations looked like they stood up. I some opening conversations with our lawyer about whether or not I would have enough evidence to confront this person and it looked like I probably did and on that basis I was given a provisional commission to make two programs, TV, half hour for Scotland and er, radio, half hour for Scotland.

Now you must understand that journalists look into dozens and dozens of stories every year. Some make it, most don’t. Some get commissioned and some get dropped mid way through a commission because maybe a story isn’t there or it’s not what they thought or other things come up, that’s just part of television.

So, what we then did…and you know, Robert you read the email out on this very program Tony, so erm, I’m not debating I never have done about the fact that there was a provisional commission to make a program on this case, so what next happened, I and my team travelled down to see Anne and Hollie, Robert Green was also there and, erm, we spent four or five hours talking to the family who, like I said at the time, I like very much and sympathise very much er…particularly all the paperwork which we’d asked for worked very very quickly, in fact almost as soon as we came out of the house we knew that there were problems, but you know, in a week or two we came to the conclusion that this was not a story that we could proceed with.

We knew that the vast majority of these allegations were unprovable and we were not in a position to pick and choose which allegations we wanted to believe, so we dropped the story. Now, Anne’s response, as was Roberts….now this is before you come back with questions, I’m sure you’ve got a few …I took the precaution when I phoned up Anne, to erm…when I was telling her about this, er, my reasons for dropping the story, I took the precaution of secretly recording… not secretly…recording the conversation for (purposes?) and also recorded the conversation with Robert Green for not taking (purposes?) and with the BBC you can do that but you’re not allowed to broadcast that material, it’s just to protect you, for example if the case comes to court or something like that.

Now, as you know, both Anne and Robert have alleged that I told them that I had to drop this story because I was forced to by my bosses, because of pressure from the government, pressure from a legal company…a legal firm called ‘Levan McCray’(?) and that I was in fear for my job, therefore I had to drop this story. Now, that conversation did not take place. Those words were not spoken and I’m afraid that I have the recorded evidence to prove it. However, that didn’t stop Robert and Anne going around the country, going on various satellite television channels, online video stations and writing that in fact I had been forced to drop the story, that I was a journalistic coward and I was in fear for my job. Now I’m afraid that isn’t, that just isn’t true because I’m not in the business of shying away from big stories, these stories are what I do. I’ve taken on some of the biggest institutions in the country, government, police, erm..I do investigate paedophile stories, if I thought I could run this one I would have done and the suggestion that I or the BBC would have walked away from a story because it’s too big or we were too scared, it’s fanciful, it just is. It’s misguided and insulting, er if this story was what er I was told it was I would’ve been all over it and I’m afraid the evidence did not support it.
Now, I’ve got many, many other things that I want to say but I want to give you or Robert a chance to come in and er asked something.

TL: Well, I’ll just like to go…I’ve got an email here from Marcus Ryder, now Marcus is your editor, is that correct?

MD: That’s true

TL: Now, I’ve got a letter here, it’s to Mr Green, that’s Robert Green, it’s from Marcus Ryder, now he says in the middle of this: When Mark Daly told Anne that he could lose his job if he were to broadcast this story, clearly (?) behind this is that it would be careless and unprofessional to broadcast allegations which could not be proven – careless and unprofessional workers rarely keep their jobs and I understand that and that’s fair enough…

MD: That’s exactly what I said and then at the end of my conversation I said, look, if I was the kind of journalist that went around broadcasting allegations which I knew were unprovable, which I knew I could never find the evidence to back it up then, journalists like that won’t stay journalists for very long. Now, somehow in that explanation it’s gone from that to me being in fear for my job because I’ve been pressurised by my boss, the government and levy McCray, now those two things don’t just tie up Tony. Now I ask you Tony, as a journalist which you told me you are, does it ring true to you that a journalist who’s done the kind of work I’ve done would suddenly decide to walk away from a story because he was scared? If I’d been told by the BBC or the government that I must drop this story that I…

Friday, 2 July 2010

It seems that the Palestine Telegraph (see article below ) may have combined artistic licence with fact.

The Palestine Telegraph tells us that Anne Greig was apparently “abused by her husband after she commenced checking the background to her brother Robert’s mysterious death and the money paper trail that he had left behind.”

The “paper trail” seems to be correct; however it was not while Anne was checking her brother’s “mysterious” death as PT would have us believe. According to a letter from Dr Elizabeth Henderson to Dr S. Wilson: A couple of weeks prior to Anne leaving her marital home Anne had found out that her brother, Robert (Roy) Greig, had embezzled her of some money. Since finding out about the embezzlement Anne had been preoccupied with investigating the source of the financial misdemeanour and her time had been consumed by this activity.

The letter goes on to say that Anne had seemingly built up an elaborate scheme, whereby her husband, son and Dr Wilson (to whom the letter was addressed) are all involved with a conspiracy against her and collaborating to prevent her from discovering the true misdemeanour of her brother’s embezzlement. Interestingly, it is now a conspiracy to prevent any justice for Hollie’s apparent abuse.

It appears that between the year 2000 and 2009 the story has changed from embezzlement to a “mysterious” death, although when the change of story actually took place is uncertain, but we do have a clue in the form of Robert Green’s talk currently on Youtube: Vid 1 and Vid2 where he states that:

@ 9:32 “Anyway, just to round up that particular part of the story, when I became involved in it about 18 months ago after we sort of, er, obviously we were concentrating very much on what happened to Hollie, but we did actually start to look at the death of Roy as well, and I approached the Crown Office to see if we could have a copy of this autopsy, you know, 12 years ago…

Continued on the next video:

…they repeatedly refused this very important documentation and it was by this time that Anne felt her brother had been murdered because of the incident involving Mackie. Er, the Crown Office told both Anne and myself that erm, yes they have got the document there but they didn’t…it wasn’t the normal procedure that’s passed onto the next of kin.”

His comment is confusing. First it seems that he and Anne only started looking into Roy’s death when Robert Green became involved 18 months ago, but then seems to contradict himself in the next part of the video: “…it was by this time that Anne felt her brother had been murdered…” By what time? By the time Robert Green became involved in the case or when the Crown Office refused to relinquish the autopsy 12 years ago?

Of course we have no idea whether or not Anne Greig truly did attempt to get a copy of her brother’s autopsy report; we only have her recent word on that. However, the official letters seem to indicate that Anne had initially believed Robert Grieg’s death was suicide so it does seem unlikely that she had made any attempt at receiving a copy of the report. If she had not, then we can assume that Roy’s death being deemed as murder may have occurred only when Robert Green became involved around 2009.

Perhaps another observation to note is that in the same letter, dated 3 May 2000, it explains that Anne is convinced that her husband was having an affair with a nurse (Anne’s cousin) who was giving her husband drugs which enabled him to poison her. I say another observation to note because this later changed to Anne stating that her husband had been poisoning Hollie and having her followed (source: letter to Ms Dinsmore from Dr Fiona Palin, dated 24 December 2003). So it appears that in the space of three years (2000 – 2003) the story had altered slightly from her husband attempting to poison her, to her husband poisoning Hollie. Incidentally, in Dr Smith’s psychiatric report, Anne had repeated the allegation of her husband having an affair with her cousin but had omitted the part about her cousin passing poison on to her husband. Considering Anne was trying to show that she is of sound mind at the time of Dr Smith’s analysis then perhaps it is of no surprise that she may have chosen to omit this detail.

It could be said that all these doctors are lying and as Anne says; that they are all conspiring against her. But it could also be as likely that Anne may have altered the story as time went by. At the moment, and without evidence, the reason why can only be speculated.

But what about the apparent embezzlement? According to Anne, her brother had no reason to commit suicide and that he had no financial problems. If this is true then why would her brother steal money from her?

The National Archives of Scotland has a record of an R. Greig who had gone into bankruptcy between 1 April1994 and 31 March 1995, only two years prior to Robert (Roy) Greig committing suicide. Is this Anne’s brother? Going by the embezzlement it may well be, but just as equally the name may belong to another person and the date is coincidental.

Whatever the truth behind these apparent discrepancies there is one thing for certain, to get to the bottom of things then perhaps these details need to be investigated further, especially as these discrepancies may leave a question mark as to how many times the story has altered (if at all), over what period of time and to what degree.